W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: HTML Table Markup

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:03:36 -0400
Message-ID: <00c001c499f6$aafc9120$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>

I'll vote for flagging tables without th as throw aways and caution in the
flag that if it is not tabular data, it should not be in a table.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: HTML Table Markup

>Checkers need to get better.  Layout tables are an oxy moron since tables
>are for holding tabular data.
>Johnnie Apple Seed

Of course checkers need to get better.  One way to help them is to create
a convention for identifying layout tables that don't and shouldn't need
additional table mark-up and should be converted to CSS layout.  Do you
have another suggestion?

Tina, David, Ineke, and others,

I started the thread [1] with the following:

Please do not include a discussion about whether to use CSS verses tables
for layout.  We already agree that CSS is the preferred solution.  Whether

we use CSS or tables for layout is not the disability issue, what really
matters is that the reading order is logical when linearized.  For example

when CSS is off or not available, or when using a magnifier or screen
reader software to navigate the content in a logical order.
<end quote>

Do you have another suggestion on how to identify the millions of layout
tables that need to be converted to CSS layout?

Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0464.html
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 01:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC